I'm not looking for necessarily for a black and white answer but there's a pretty large gray area between an M16 rifle and a nuclear bomb. Just trying to narrow it down.
The fact that you see no difference between a whacko on a killing spree and a whacko with a nuke means that you and I are are probably on the same side of this discussion. I'm not a big fan of guns, but if one can argue that the 2nd Amendment is the right for people to hava an Army, one can also argue that the 2nd Amendment is the right of people to own large scale weapons. One of the chief arguments for the 2nd Amendment is for protection against internal threats such as our own government. Our government owns nukes.
I don't necessarily agree. I'm just trying to explore where the typical 2nd Amendment argument starts to break down under the enormity of human loss.
I did not state my position WRT the right to bear arms. I asked an admittedly ridiculous question.
...keep and bear arms. IANAL. Are "arms" specifically defined as personal firearms such as handguns, rifles and shotguns? Can a person own a Howitzer?
It's a constitutionally protected right to possess the capability to kill a dozen or so people, but being able to kill millions is right out. Where's the line drawn? When does one stop being a threat to other individuals and start being a threat to the security of the nation?
[Note: I think the Anarchist's Cookbook has a mostly negative effect, and banning it would _probably_ have a positive net effect (I don't see any convincing reason for it based on "free speech" offhand)]
Where do you draw the line? Physical harm? Mental anquish?
I would rather have it all, the good and the potentially bad than have someone or some group dictate what should and should not be allowed.
Interesting point. Perhaps this ambiguity will ultimately lead to a Supreme Court decision mirroring that on pornography, saying "I don't know how to define source code, but I know it when I see it."
What an incredibly great idea. I'm sure it will keep the lawyers employed for years to come.
"Community Standards" What a joke. Just because they all agree doesn't make them right.
Is it my imagination or does most of the really bad things regarding social matters usually happen in California?
It was a movie. I think the really bad things are happening in North Carolina. Granted, we have had some rather silly propositions passed in the last two years in California (22 this year and the one on horse meat last year), but I doubt that we have the corner on the market for bad legislation in this country.
The point is that it is rather impossible with thinking people in a democracy to create such an organization.
Thinking people... in a democracy... Where do you find those? Tommy Lee said it best. "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
I think that if you really wanted to change the world for the worse a group of propaganda films intricatly done would work extremely well for that purpose.
No argument here. We have millions convinced that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol and nicotine.
A pep club is a long way from the hitler youth movement and social clensing.
Tell that to the people that fear high-school gay/straight alliance groups.
Re:I'm not in the US. Why does DMCA matter to me?
on
Geographic Screening
·
· Score: 1
The only reason we have Big Business is because of overselves. The greed of Big Business is only a reflection of the collective greed of its workers, and their inability to say "What we're doing is wrong, so I'm not going to work for you anymore."
I may be overgeneralizing but I truly believe that most people are far too busy worrying about how they will pay for the house, the car, the food, etc. to take the time necessary to be idealogical.
I work for the government. Do I agree with every U.S. policy? No. Am I willing to give it up because of that? Not a chance. I've got bills to pay. cheers, sand
This is simply a ploy to get people with cursory knowledge of tech stocks to invest in TI.
Tom Engibous is paid to raise the value of TI stocks. He is not a prophet.
I think I can find a better vision of the future of computing here at/. than I can from some suit. Of course, I have to dig through a lot of chaff first, but...
I disagree and I may be over-generalizing but, IMHO, the "real gurus" are not the people who made this a booming industry. If you want to continue making software for yourselves, that's fine. Just don't expect it to be as lucrative as if you "dumbed" it down for Aunt Millie. They may be ignorant folks, but they have the money and they aren't afraid to shell it out for user-friendly software. Keep it simple, make it intuitive and be sure to put plenty of warnings.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. The rules define the game. If you're not playing by the same rules, you are no longer playing the same game.
There's also not a single sane and mentally proficient person that will contest that giving a handgun to a nut would be beneficial.
In any case, you missed my point. Owning a semi-automatic weapon is okay. Owning a nuke is not. There's a rather large gray area in-between.
It's not an argument at all. It's a question.
I'm not looking for necessarily for a black and white answer but there's a pretty large gray area between an M16 rifle and a nuclear bomb. Just trying to narrow it down.
The fact that you see no difference between a whacko on a killing spree and a whacko with a nuke means that you and I are are probably on the same side of this discussion. I'm not a big fan of guns, but if one can argue that the 2nd Amendment is the right for people to hava an Army, one can also argue that the 2nd Amendment is the right of people to own large scale weapons. One of the chief arguments for the 2nd Amendment is for protection against internal threats such as our own government. Our government owns nukes.
I don't necessarily agree. I'm just trying to explore where the typical 2nd Amendment argument starts to break down under the enormity of human loss.
I did not state my position WRT the right to bear arms. I asked an admittedly ridiculous question.
It's a constitutionally protected right to possess the capability to kill a dozen or so people, but being able to kill millions is right out. Where's the line drawn? When does one stop being a threat to other individuals and start being a threat to the security of the nation?
I'll let you know when the time is right.
Are you honestly going to tell me that you would want a situation where every nut in every city has the power to kill millions of people?
We already have a situation where every nut in every city has the power to kill a dozen or more people.
Is there a defined limit to personal destructive power?
I trust that most people will walk on the good side of that line. Therefore, I oppose all censorship.
I too can't see any reason why someone would need to possess their own nuclear device, but is that ownership not protected by the 2nd Amendment?
I admit, it's a ridiculous question.
IANAL
You're not the government. You can impose any restrictions upon your user's that you like. It's your system.
[Note: I think the Anarchist's Cookbook has a mostly negative effect, and banning it would _probably_ have a positive net effect (I don't see any convincing reason for it based on "free speech" offhand)]
Where do you draw the line? Physical harm? Mental anquish?
I would rather have it all, the good and the potentially bad than have someone or some group dictate what should and should not be allowed.
Interesting point. Perhaps this ambiguity will ultimately lead to a Supreme Court decision mirroring that on pornography, saying "I don't know how to define source code, but I know it when I see it."
What an incredibly great idea. I'm sure it will keep the lawyers employed for years to come.
"Community Standards" What a joke. Just because they all agree doesn't make them right.
Since the final word now is that source code is a constitutionally protected form of expression...
Is the Federal 6th Circuit Appeals Court indeed the final word?
Oops... correct URL: http://www.ncjrs.org/ht ml/ojjdp/nationalreport99/index.html
Don't take Jon's word for it. Read the report yourself:
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report
You'll also find that the term "geek" means something entirely different for chickens and snakes.
Next, we'll hold newpapers liable if someone sells stolen property via the classified ads.
Gimme a break.
cheers,
Is it my imagination or does most of the really bad things regarding social matters usually happen in California?
It was a movie. I think the really bad things are happening in North Carolina. Granted, we have had some rather silly propositions passed in the last two years in California (22 this year and the one on horse meat last year), but I doubt that we have the corner on the market for bad legislation in this country.
The point is that it is rather impossible with thinking people in a democracy to create such an organization.
Thinking people... in a democracy... Where do you find those? Tommy Lee said it best. "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
I think that if you really wanted to change the world for the worse a group of propaganda films intricatly done would work extremely well for that purpose.
No argument here. We have millions convinced that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol and nicotine.
A pep club is a long way from the hitler youth movement and social clensing.
Tell that to the people that fear high-school gay/straight alliance groups.
cheers,
Excellent post. You should come out from behind the AC cloak and claim it.
cheers,
Hmmm... is this a troll or an attempt at humour?
Personally, I think it's funny.
cheers,
She says it herself, "I have never created a Web site other than our own."
cheers,
cheers,
cheers,
The only reason we have Big Business is because of overselves. The greed of Big Business is only a reflection of the collective greed of its workers, and their inability to say "What we're doing is wrong, so I'm not going to work for you anymore."
I may be overgeneralizing but I truly believe that most people are far too busy worrying about how they will pay for the house, the car, the food, etc. to take the time necessary to be idealogical.
I work for the government. Do I agree with every U.S. policy? No. Am I willing to give it up because of that? Not a chance. I've got bills to pay. cheers, sand
cheers,
My personal experience is that almost no one coming online these days even knows Usenet exists.
You make that sound like it's a bad thing.
cheers,
This is simply a ploy to get people with cursory knowledge of tech stocks to invest in TI.
Tom Engibous is paid to raise the value of TI stocks. He is not a prophet.
I think I can find a better vision of the future of computing here at /. than I can from some suit. Of course, I have to dig through a lot of chaff first, but...
cheers,
cheers,